Jitendra Kumar, J. – Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. Hence, on request of this Court, Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate has agreed to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner.

2. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred by the victim/petitioner/Rekha Devi (Informant) against the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2018, whereby Criminal Appeal filed by the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 has been allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 25.06.2018 passed by Shri Punit Kumar Tiwary, learned Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Kishanganj in G.R. Case No. 1270 of 2012 corresponding to Kishanganj Mahila P.S. Case No. 49 of 2012, whereby learned Trial Court convicted the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 341, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Factual Background

3. The factual background of the case is that on the basis of the written report of the victim/informant/Rekha Devi, who is petitioner herein, Kishanganj Mahila P.S. Case No. 49 of 2012 was registered on 28.10.2012 against three accused persons including the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 and one Pramod Sharma. As per allegation, the victim was subjected to assault by the accused persons.

4. After submission of charge-sheet and taking of cognizance and framing of charge, the trial commenced, in which learned Trial Court found O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 and Pramod Sharma guilty. However, on appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2018 before the Court of Sessions, learned Appellate Court acquitted the appellants of all charges. Hence, being aggrieved by the Appellate judgment, the victim/informant/Rekha Devi has preferred the present criminal revision.

Submissions of the parties

5. However, during hearing of the revision petition, preliminary objection has been raised by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 that present criminal revision petition is not maintainable.

6. They submit that in view of the Proviso to Section 372 read with Section 378 Cr.PC, the petitioner should have filed Criminal Appeal after obtaining Leave of this Court. They further submit that the present Criminal Revision is hit by Section 401(4) Cr.PC.

7. Per contra, learned Amicus Curiae submits that in view of the acquittal of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 by lower Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2018, the petitioner/informant/victim has rightly filed the present Criminal Revision, because the impugned judgment is already passed by the Lower Appellate Court and no further appeal could lie against the Appellate judgment. Under such circumstances, only remedy left with the victim/petitioner herein was to file Criminal Revision against the impugned judgment.

Consideration

8. I considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the material on record.

The question involved

9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the question is what is the legal remedy to the victim/petitioner herein against the Appellate judgment of acquittal – whether the petitioner has rightly filed Criminal Revision or she should have filed Criminal Appeal with or without Leave of this Court.

Legal provisions

10. Criminal Appeal in case of acquittal is provided under Section 378 Cr.PC, which reads as follows: –

“Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Appeal in case of acquittal. – [(1) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-Section (2), and subject to the provisions of Sub-Sections (3) and (5), –

(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;

(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court